{"id":222045,"date":"2019-11-13T15:23:13","date_gmt":"2019-11-13T09:53:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=222045"},"modified":"2019-11-14T18:18:00","modified_gmt":"2019-11-14T12:48:00","slug":"breaking-rules-made-under-s-184-of-finance-act-struck-down-centre-to-make-new-rules-for-appointment-to-tribunals","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/11\/13\/breaking-rules-made-under-s-184-of-finance-act-struck-down-centre-to-make-new-rules-for-appointment-to-tribunals\/","title":{"rendered":"Rules made under S. 184 of Finance Act struck down; Centre to make new Rules for appointment to Tribunals [Full Report]"},"content":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court<\/strong><\/span>: The 5-judge Constitution Bench of Ranjan Goigoi, CJ and NV Ramana, Dr. DY Chandrachud, Deepak Gupta and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ has upheld the validity of Section 184 of the Finance Act, 2017 and held that the said Section does not suffer from excessive delegation of legislative functions as there are adequate principles to guide framing of delegated legislation, which would include the binding dictums of this Court.<\/p>\n

The Court, however, struck down the Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal and other Authorities (Qualifications, Experience and other Conditions of Service of Members) Rules, 2017, made under Section 184 of the Finance Act, 2017, for being contrary to the parent enactment and the principles envisaged in the Constitution.<\/p>\n

In the 255-pages long verdict, CJI Ranjan Gogoi penned the majority opinion for the Bench and Justices DY Chandrachud and Deepak Gupta wrote separate but concurrent opinions.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

Majority Opinion written by Gogoi, CJ<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

Finance Act being a Money Bill<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n

The Court said that the provisions of Article 110(1) have to be given an appropriate meaning and interpretation to avoid and prevent over-inclusiveness or under-inclusiveness. Any interpretation would have far reaching consequences. It is therefore, necessary that there should be absolute clarity with regard to the provisions and any ambiguity and debate should be ironed out and affirmatively decided. In case of doubt, certainly the opinion of the Speaker would be conclusive, but that would not be a consideration to avoid answering and deciding the scope and ambit of \u201cMoney Bill\u201d under Article 110(1) of the Constitution.<\/p>\n

It, hence, held,<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cThe issue and question of Money Bill, as defined under Article 110(1) of the Constitution, and certification accorded by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha in respect of Part-XIV of the Finance Act, 2017 is referred to a larger Bench.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Correctness of Aadhaar Verdict & reference to 7-judge bench<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Since both the parties had relied upon the judgment in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (Aadhaar-5 Judge<\/em>),\u00a0(2019) 1 SCC 1<\/strong><\/a>, the Court extensively examined the issue and noticed that the majority in K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5) pronounced the nature of the Aadhaar Act, 2016 without first delineating the scope of Article 110(1) and principles for interpretation or the repercussions of such process<\/em><\/span>. It said,<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cIt is clear to us that the majority dictum in K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5) did not substantially discuss the effect of the word \u2018only\u2019 in Article 110(1) and offers little guidance on the repercussions of a finding when some of the provisions of an enactment passed as a \u201cMoney Bill\u201d do not conform to Article 110(1)(a) to (g).\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Noticing that the majority judgment in K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5)<\/em> did not elucidate and explain the scope and ambit of sub-clauses (a) to (f) to clause (1) of Article 110 of the Constitution, a legal position and facet which arises for consideration in the present case and assumes considerable importance, the Court, held<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cGiven the various challenges made to the scope of judicial review and interpretative principles (or lack thereof) as adumbrated by the majority in K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5) and the substantial precedential impact of its analysis of the Aadhaar Act, 2016, it becomes essential to determine its correctness. Being a Bench of equal strength as that in K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-5), we accordingly direct that this batch of matters be placed before Hon\u2019ble the Chief Justice of India, on the administrative side, for consideration by a larger Bench.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Validity of Section 184 of Finance Act, 2017<\/span><\/strong><\/h4>\n

Accepting the submission of Attorney General KK Venugopal that Section 184 was inserted to bring uniformity and with a view to harmonise the diverse and wide-ranging qualifications and methods of appointment across different tribunals carries weight, the Court said,<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cwe do not think that the power to prescribe qualifications, selection procedure and service conditions of members and other office holders of the tribunals is intended to vest solely with the Legislature for all times and purposes.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Grounds for striking down the Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal and other Authorities (Qualifications, Experience and other Conditions of Service of Members) Rules, 2017<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n